Seeking Help with Excavated 1728 Pattern Bilbo Sword

fernando · 26th February 2023, 08:39 PM

We all have different eyes; some more imaginative than others !

toaster5sqn · 26th February 2023, 11:44 PM

There appears to be the remains of a pean at the end of the tang suggesting that the tang is complete. This suggests that the guard is not original to the blade since the shell mount doesn't fit over the ricasso and the remaining tang behind the quillons is far to short.

Robert

Radboud · 27th February 2023, 12:39 AM

I agree with Robert; the blade doesn't belong to this guard. In the examples, I've seen the ricasso (in the correct meaning of the term) is straight-sided and there is a secondary shoulder where the tang goes into the grip:

G. Mansfield · 28th February 2023, 07:48 PM

Thank you for your thoughts. The tang in total is about 5" where 2" is riccaso and the remaining 3" of grip/pommel. This does seem short, too small for me use but somebody with smaller hands possibly. What about the other irregularity with the location of the screw holes? Could this be a French/ Dutch replicated guard in the pattern 1728?

Geoffrey

toaster5sqn · 28th February 2023, 08:05 PM

That's not a riccaso, it's just all tang. Remember there should be approx 1 1/2" of pommel on the end (the same length as is thinned down to round cross section at the end of the tang). If you replace the guard with a simple cross you will find the grip length is about perfect.

Also the slot in the guard should match the cross section of the blade at whichever step it ends but it's way to big for the tang and not big enough to go over the blade.

Robert

Radboud · 1st March 2023, 04:37 AM

I'm sorry, but that blade and guard do not belong together. If you look closely at the 1728s I posted, their ricassos are clearly defined and properly finished.

The entire tang of your blade has a raw finish as if it was never intended to be seen.

fernando · 1st March 2023, 09:43 AM

As firstly suspectd that hilt and blade had different origins (2#) and now well established, we might speculate that, the person that digged both items would have found them in the same location but separated one from the other; could then infer that they would be originally set together (or not) and join them as if they so were.
Notably the blade would (also) deserve some ID; it sure is a peculiar and genuine early item... wouldn't you guys agree ?

27th February 2023, 12:39 AM	#3
Radboud Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 276	I agree with Robert; the blade doesn't belong to this guard. In the examples, I've seen the ricasso (in the correct meaning of the term) is straight-sided and there is a secondary shoulder where the tang goes into the grip: Attached Images

28th February 2023, 07:48 PM	#4
G. Mansfield Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Colorado Posts: 91	Thank you for your thoughts. The tang in total is about 5" where 2" is riccaso and the remaining 3" of grip/pommel. This does seem short, too small for me use but somebody with smaller hands possibly. What about the other irregularity with the location of the screw holes? Could this be a French/ Dutch replicated guard in the pattern 1728? Geoffrey Attached Images

26th February 2023, 08:39 PM	#1
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	We all have different eyes; some more imaginative than others !

26th February 2023, 11:44 PM	#2
toaster5sqn Member Join Date: Jul 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 74	There appears to be the remains of a pean at the end of the tang suggesting that the tang is complete. This suggests that the guard is not original to the blade since the shell mount doesn't fit over the ricasso and the remaining tang behind the quillons is far to short. Robert

28th February 2023, 08:05 PM	#5
toaster5sqn Member Join Date: Jul 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 74	That's not a riccaso, it's just all tang. Remember there should be approx 1 1/2" of pommel on the end (the same length as is thinned down to round cross section at the end of the tang). If you replace the guard with a simple cross you will find the grip length is about perfect. Also the slot in the guard should match the cross section of the blade at whichever step it ends but it's way to big for the tang and not big enough to go over the blade. Robert

1st March 2023, 04:37 AM	#6
Radboud Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 276	I'm sorry, but that blade and guard do not belong together. If you look closely at the 1728s I posted, their ricassos are clearly defined and properly finished. The entire tang of your blade has a raw finish as if it was never intended to be seen.

1st March 2023, 09:43 AM	#7
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	As firstly suspectd that hilt and blade had different origins (2#) and now well established, we might speculate that, the person that digged both items would have found them in the same location but separated one from the other; could then infer that they would be originally set together (or not) and join them as if they so were. Notably the blade would (also) deserve some ID; it sure is a peculiar and genuine early item... wouldn't you guys agree ?